linux-kernel - Re: [Patch V0] x86, mce: Ensure offline CPU's don't participate in mce rendezvous process.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20151204193810.GP21177@pd.tnic>
Date:	Fri, 4 Dec 2015 20:38:10 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:	"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Andy Lutomirski (luto@...capital.net)" <luto@...capital.net>
Subject: Re: [Patch V0] x86, mce: Ensure offline CPU's don't participate in
 mce rendezvous process.

On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 06:30:39PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> Ashok wants to move in stage 2 to having the offline cpu scan banks and report
> any errors seen there.  To do that we'll have to run through a fair bit of the
> do_machine_check() code.

I'm still very sceptical whether logging those errors are worth the risk
of running code on an offlined CPU.

> But ... if you want a super safe version to put the stable tag on ... we could
> just have something like this at the head of do_machine_check()

It would be prudent IMO. We don't want to disrupt stable kernels
unnecessarily.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/